A contrarian blog, because the majority is wrong about a lot of stuff.

December 17, 2012

Conservatives should fear psychiatrists more than gun control

I find myself agreeing with the comments who say that conservatives should fear giving power to psychiatrists. It’s easy to imagine a future in which people are institutionalized for being “racist,” and because HBD bloggers are considered “racist,” it means that I could be institutionalized.

In contrast, I don’t see how a ban on a certain category of guns defined as “assault weapons” is going to change anything. They're not something anyone has any use for in daily life. If you’re going to have an armed revolt against the government, then just do it already and stop imagining it. And if you don’t want to have that revolt right now (which of course is the reality, no armed revolt is happening this year), in the future you will still be able to kill government agents with hunting rifles.

And a hunting rifle is just fine for home defense. Better even. If you kill a home intruder with an Uzi, they will just think you're a gun nut so you must be guilty of murder. You have a chance of avoiding prosecution if you defend yourself with a hunting rifle. Especially if it has a retro wooden stock and not a military-looking black stock.

52 Comments

The naivety of the fascist/white nationalist/socialist wing of the HBD movement astounds me. They call for giving power to the elite and locking up crazy people? They completely forget their enemies are the elite and that they are the ones who will find themselves in the asylums.

Asylums for conservatives are coming. Teaching the elite about HBD is probably going to backfire, because it might mean sterilization for conservatives.

The ONLY way to defeat the elite is through reproduction. Babies not Bullets. If we win this it will be in the cradle rather than the battlefield or the ballot box.

I'm starting to worry that data mining is going to identify conservatives. Then subtle forces will gradually marginalize us. Maybe something like 10% of your job applications will simply be deleted. Not enough to make you suspicious, but enough to slightly decrease your earnings. Maybe when you take the GRE on the computer the program will give you slightly harder problems, again not at the level that will raise red flags. Maybe OKCupid will list you a little lower in the search results, and rate your match % just a little lower. Maybe your house will be appraised for 10% more than your neighbors. Not enough to break the bank, but just enough to increase your property taxes. They will use statistics and datebases to nickle and dime us. We'll have trouble getting money, status, and good mates (with good genes). Generation after generation we'll have maybe 10% less fitness and after ten generations our descendants will find themselves a poor, genetically inferior underclass.

That probably won't happen, but only because I don't think that their society will continue long enough to oppress us for that long. I can see them trying it for a generation or two before they get swept away by a new elite.

Of course you're right about psychiatrists, but you keep missing the point about the supposed category called "assault weapons." Every variety of gun-hater has a different definition of AW. E.g., in California, an otherwise legal gun is an AW if it has either a clip with more than 10 rounds, or a pistol grip, or even a certain style of checkered grip. So if blacks or other minorities decide to esclate, going out in packs to eliminate whitey rather than just knock over the 7-Eleven, there'll be a "legitimate need" for a 30-round clip, won't there?

[HS: If there's a gang of blacks, each black toting a rifle with a 30-round clip, I won't need my own 30-round clip because I'm not going to hang around.]

Half, agreeing to ban "assault" weapons is walking down the same road as agreeing to lock up the crazy people. Liberals are in charge and they will define any weapon they feel like as an "assault weapon". Conviniently this will include most of the cool, inexpensive, popular models. Probably it will expand to include hunting rifles also, because hunting is evil (white men vs sacred animals). I think that in addition to fear of a goyim uprising, a significant motivation of "gun control" is simply a fuck-you to rednecks. The new england puritans are just the same as ever and can't abide anyone else having fun.

The liberals love to talk about men who like to shoot guns "needing the gun to feel like a man". Maybe the conversation should be had about why so many men out there are feeling un-manly. The quick answer is to say there's something wrong with them (and this is the explanation we get from the left) but obviously there is much more going on.

"In contrast, I don’t see how a ban on a certain category of guns defined as “assault weapons” is going to change anything."

Lanza didn't use automatic weapons. He used a rifle and handguns. And he stole them from his mom so there's no gun control measure short of banning all guns that could have stopped him. Even countries like Germany that have very strict gun controls have mass school shootings.

[HS: So if you will still be able to mass-kill after this "ban," why worry about it?]

Lots of people use their evil black rifles for hunting. The power of a typical hunting rifle round would over penetrate easier than something like an uzi or an ar-15. The only thing it's going to change is the availability of people to buy what they prefer which is a stupid reason to pass a law. Not to mention with all things liberal, it's not like they won't try to take the rest of the guns away after this passes. There will be another school shooting and instead of saying "well that didn't work" the response will be "More gun control!"

Darn near every hunting rifle made adds a substantial risk of overpenetration (meaning you're at risk of hitting something beyond your house after going through anything but real masonry walls). There's no best, but a shotgun with buckshot, pistole caliber carbine, are both better choices than a hunting rifle (and both feature models with wooden stocks if that's a desire).

Ban autoloaders. Compensate the owners. If they want to buy a revolver, fine. What ban advocates need is the support of NRA members who don't like being stuck in an arms race. Calling autoloaders that are not painted pink "assault weapons" won't impress the grumpy 60 year old NRA member with an old revolver who knows he still needs an upgrade against the pink autoloader.

"It’s easy to imagine a future in which people are institutionalized for being “racist,” and because HBD bloggers are considered “racist,” it means that I could be institutionalized."

Actually I find that very hard to imagine. First of all, almost the entire educated class will openly believe in HBD in the coming decades because advances in genetics will prove racial IQ differences beyond a shadow of a doubt. The label racist will then only be applied to people who lack compassion towards less intelligent races, not merely those who acknowledge differences.

Second of all, even if HBD belief were considered mental illness, it would not be considered sufficiently serious to justify institutionalization.

I have to admit that I never understand the position among some on the right that well, one day we made need to have an armed revolt against the government, so preparing for that revolt has to be legal.

Look, the revolt itself will almost certainly be always illegal, so why the big concern over the legality of stockpiling arms and ammo for the revolt?

Rifles for home defense are generally a no-no unless you're using really frangible rounds; .30 caliber FMJ will go right through your walls and retain most of its energy. JHP or lead bullets are better, but .223 hollowpoint is less likely to bust through an interior wall.

.30-06 or .30-30 aren't bad rounds for hunting deer and other larger wildlife, but in a defensive gun use, they require more substantial backstops, which aren't going to be present in a suburban or urban environment.

At the distances usually involved in a self-defense situatiom, handguns are by far a more practical choice, though a Mossberg 500 can be had on the cheap; #1 buckshot isn't terribly likely to overpenetrate, either.

Mexico's a great example of why gun control screws the little guy; only the cops, soldiers, rich people's guards, and narcotrafficantes have guns. The people are trapped in an ongoing civil war with no means to defend themselves or their property. Given the descent into tribal warfare in Detroit and Chicago, it looks increasingly unconscionable to deny citizens the means of effective self-defense. Gangbangers and drug dealers have plenty of guns, but law-abiding people trapped in those neighborhoods can't exactly depend on police to keep them safe; response time will only increase with further budget cuts.

I absolutely agree with you about the dangers of psychiatry being used to institutionalize those who don't adhere to liberal-left orthodoxy. But I am also opposed to a new assault weapons ban.

To begin with, the term "assault weapon" is emotive and a complete red herring. Take two guns which are mechanically identical: both fire the same kind of ammunition at the same rate; both are equally accurate. However, if one is equipped with certain features, such as a flash suppressor, a folding stock or a bayonet mount, it immediately becomes an assault weapon.

Even had Congress renewed the assault weapons ban in 2004, it would not have prevented the massacre at Sandy Hook. Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster rifle. It's a standard hunting rifle which no-one is talking of banning - at least not yet, anyway - and would not have fallen within the remit of a renewed ban.

Finally, once an assault weapons ban was in place, it would inevitably be extended. This has already happened in California, which does have such a ban - and includes guns such as the Walther P-22. This is a small pistol which fires 22 caliber ammunition and not some big, scary rifle. So how does CA law define it as an assault weapon? Because it has a threaded barrel, suitable for attaching a silencer.

The guys who commit these school shootings always seem to be intelligent, shy, nerdy young men. (Has a jock ever gone on the rampage in this way?) So perhaps rather than banning certain types of gun, which isn't going to work, or locking-up people who are a bit odd, which is extremely dangerous, perhaps we need a program of de-nerdification. (I seem to remember something to this effect on your blog a while ago.) Young men lacking in social skills, such as how to make friends - and especially how to talk to girls - need to be taught them. They also need to be taught to curb their interests in things usually associated with nerds, such as computers and WoW. I'm not saying they should not be interested in such things; rather they need to understand they're not everyone's burning passion.

Alright guys, stop beating up on HS and the other NYers about rifles. They knows all about class, fashion, cameras, etc... but not about guns. Not a big deal. I'll just summarize it: Rifles are for hunting and war, not for home defense. Rifles are the white man's gun, and in fact should probably be considered a racial advantage that we have. I can't imagine a ghetto mob with rifles, much less using them effectively. Hunting rifles are overkill for humans. Trying to ban guns is a huge mistake that Democrats make, it causes them to lose elections. An attempt to institute new gun laws will give Republicans the senate.

Linda wrote: "Second of all, even if HBD belief were considered mental illness, it would not be considered sufficiently serious to justify institutionalization."

Of course they would institutionalize us. They've done if before and they'll do it again. Please research the "progressive era", specifically "eugenics".

CH wrote: "Defund the ruling class and rob them of their propaganda organs. Then close the borders and kick out the migrant squatters."

Please research "fractional reserve banking" so you will understand why it is impossible to defund the elite. Next recognize that if you personally attempted to close the borders that arrest would be in your future. Your "other way" presumes that there is a huge active majority that opposes the elite. The allies that you are trying to wake up simply do not exist. In theory an electoral strategy could work, but demographics and the transition to a one-party state will close that window in about a decade. There will never be an electoral victory that turns the tide against the elite. At best we might elect Rand Paul as one last hurrah, but he won't be able to purge the universities and the media, and so any gains will be temporary.

I have to admit that I never understand the position among some on the right that well, one day we made need to have an armed revolt against the government, so preparing for that revolt has to be legal.

Look, the revolt itself will almost certainly be always illegal, so why the big concern over the legality of stockpiling arms and ammo for the revolt?"

Let's say that firearms will be much easier to find in a legal environment than an illegal one. If, say, firearms were rendered illegal, many gun factories would run out of business, and it would cause shortages of guns and ammo the day of the glorious revolution.

But I agree on the fact legal gun ownership is not a necessary condition of revolutions.

The French revolution started with around 10,000 people in Paris, armed only with their fists. Revolvers were almost nowhere to be seen. They solved their firearm problem by raiding a government supply cache, and voila.

Why wouldn't a "people's revolution" be able to do the same? No doubt, if the cause of the revolutionaries is good, many federal agents would join them and give them access to government supply depots.

"No doubt, if the cause of the revolutionaries is good, many federal agents would join them and give them access to government supply depots."

Ha, ha ha ha ha ha.

Anyone who might be sympathetic to revolutionaries against the cathedral doesn't get to be a federal agent in the first place. And the few that slip through the cracks are so outnumbered their effectiveness would be next to none. But you are forgetting about the ridiculous mismatch in technology available to the government vs the rebels.

They could very well unleash a chemical weapon on the entire general population, giving vaccines only to people of their choosing. It would be technically very easy to do something like that and would make revolution pretty much impossible. I'm not saying they are planning to do something like this, only that they could do it and it would be pretty easy. We already know what they think of anyone who doesn't agree with them.

The right to arms is a symbolic, psychological right that gives the people a sense of democratic identity and autonomy. No one is fooling themselves into thinking a militia could outgun the US military in some kind of epic battle, but the first step of any fascist government or dictatorship is to disarm its citizens... this has been repeated throughout history. In the advent of Nazi Germany Jews were expressly forbidden from gun ownership.

Additionally there is a strong right to personal protection-- and no, a shotgun is not ideal to protect against home invasion, especially if it's a woman with no upper body strength trying to wield it.

Untrue. Its .223 load is too powerful for small game and too weak for deer. Moreover, its 30-round magazine is vastly larger than what any hunter would need (it's rare to get more than one shot at a game animal), and in most states would be illegal anyway.

So the kid of a single-mother and public school teacher has puh-sychiatrical problems and we cast aspersions on conservatives.

We should have a month long public school holiday while we have psychological evaluations of public school teachers. Single-mother public school teachers would be replaced with married Mormons. I know its against civil rights, but times have changed.

"And a hunting rifle is just fine for home defense. Better even. If you kill a home intruder with an Uzi, they will just think you're a gun nut so you must be guilty of murder. You have a chance of avoiding prosecution if you defend yourself with a hunting rifle. Especially if it has a retro wooden stock and not a military-looking black stock."

I can't believe I am reading this crap.

A person would be convicted if he is perceived as a gun lover, but if he is a hunter, well then, it is okay to shoot an intruder? What in the world? How insane.

Easier said than done. A massive education/psychotherapy program will raise some percentage of nerds into normalcy, but I seriously doubt the majority can be fixed. Look at PUA seminars. Sure, a few beta males are able to up their Game and get laid, but they're the minority.

HS: And since those high-powered hunting rifles will not be banned, why are gun-people getting so worked up over this?

Gun owners learned long ago that reasonable restrictions tend to be followed by additional less reasonable laws (I suspect most of them are generally ok with the 1934 law but oppose the 68 and 86 amendments). So they oppose all new restrictions because eventually they've found that reasonable restrictions become unreasonable ones. Consider it to be something like reasonable restrictions on abortion, everyone knows the real goal of the opponents so reasonable restrictions are just methods to eventually restrict it heavily.

Yes Bluto, its the slippery slope. While it may be a fallacy in formal logic, it is in reality how a lot of things get done. At first, its the scariest looking guns, then its the less scary, then the less scary and the process repeats until all guns are banned.

My aversion to gun control stems from guns being the great equalizer. With a gun, I trump Mike Tyson without a gun, and so does a 90 pound woman. I wouldn't take on Mike Tyson if I had a knife and he was unarmed, but I would with gun.

I see gun control as empowering the large, the muscular and the criminal.

"[HS: So if you will still be able to mass-kill after this "ban," why worry about it?]"

Bluto said it for me: if federal bureaucrats are granted more regulatory power over guns it's only a matter before they start agitating for even more red tape to harass everyone with.

If the evidence suggested this would be the absolute last restriction on gun rights then I *might* be willing to live with it. But since all of the signals point in the opposite direction then I'm compelled to oppose any further restraints.

"but I seriously doubt the majority can be fixed. Look at PUA seminars. Sure, a few beta males are able to up their Game and get laid, but they're the minority."

Most of the attendees at Game seminars are omegas, not betas.

Ordinary beta males stand to benefit the most from Game because regular middle class guys have minor to moderate flaws that can normally be smoothed over or hidden via Game techniques. By contrast, the omegas have one or more serious flaws that disqualify them in the eyes of all but the lowest class women.

"CH wrote: "Defund the ruling class and rob them of their propaganda organs. Then close the borders and kick out the migrant squatters."

Another way to defund the academic pillar of the Cathedral would be to use MOOCs to automate most introductory college level classes out of existence. This can be done with state legislation that mandates all introductory core general education classes at public universities can be satisfied via MOOCs such as Udacity, Coursera, and similar for a fraction of the cost of standard brick and mortar classes. And again, the cover story for the states to pull the power cord would be that they are only interested in making college cheaper for the middle class. Any partisan advantages should never be publicly mentioned. Private snickering is, as always, welcome.

I see gun control as empowering the large, the muscular and the criminal.

Posted by: DH | December 17, 2012 at 08:47 PM

Interesting. Okay, assuming that is in fact the case, how does it play out? Well, you will be abused but not killed such that you live to continue to be productive and exploited for another day. Yeah, I can see how that would appeal to elites who don't want us dead, because we are more useful to them alive. It is hard to occupy the top when there is only unproductive scum below. They need us, so yeah, that is a functioning schema.

HS: "In contrast, I don’t see how a ban on a certain category of guns defined as “assault weapons” is going to change anything."

I happen to like some of those guns. Such a ban would deprive me of them and decrease my happiness. Maybe you don't care, but I do. It's as if someone banned those Persian rugs you used to pimp.

HS: "They're not something anyone has any use for in daily life."

That's not the proper criteria for deciding whether or not something should be banned.

HS: "And a hunting rifle is just fine for home defense."

What is it about New York Jews that renders even the intelligent ones clueless about guns? They're not that complicated, after all, and Jews ain't dumb. Hunting rifles are *terrible* for home defense. Hard to maneuver and prone to over-penetration. A shotgun or handgun would be much better. Short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles in pistol calibres would be even better, but, whoops, those are already banned (practically - NFA 1934).

HS: "If you kill a home intruder with an Uzi"

"Uzi". Lol. Sort of been supplanted by the MP-5, and, again, both guns proper are submachineguns, i.e. full-auto, i.e. highly-regulated/pseudo-banned already and not what we're discussing here.

First, you don't want a shotguns in the house. Shotguns are messy. Any shooting within the distance of, say, a bedroom will take a head and half the torso off. A mess like that requires a hazmat team to clean up.

The .223 rifle like the Bushmaster is perfect for home defense. AR guns are very light with light recoil. The bullet is powerful enough to go through body armor, but light enough to tumble in the air, so it does not pass through walls easily. Now, 30-06 or .308 is too powerful.

Second, it should be obvious that the relentless push for gun control is driven by liberals' intense need to do bad things to you that they could not otherwise do if you were armed. The idea is not to go toe-to-toe with government forces. Sure, you will lose. The idea is to increase the reluctance of armed government thugs from executing the orders of their masters...because someone has to go through a door first. An armed populace breeds a reluctance in the subcategory of human willing to kick down doors and attack scared civilians that would otherwise not exist if the balance of power were lopsided.

Third, locking up mental patients is not about giving libs power. It's about harkening to the days when mental institutions effectively prevented crazy people from harming themselves and others. It also attacks the mentals as the sacred cows of liberalism.

Actually they are already here metaphorically speaking. The entire divorce / family therapy industry is dominated by psychiatrists and psychologists who are totally pro-feminist anti-male. Try being a male in a child custody battle and you will find out how easy it is to end up in losing everything and possibly ending up in prison. These are the same people who will be sitting in judgment when someone, perhaps a soon to be ex-spouse, feels threatened and wants to claim you are a potential risk. No thank you.

Switzerland has a very low crime rate, so much so that very nice bicycles are left unlocked and unattended on the streets of Basel 24/7, which shocked me, but that’s the kind of community I think I want to live in. In NYC you HAVE to lock your bike up, and even if you lock both tires and the frame they might steal your seat, and if you take your seat with you they might just smash out your spokes to spite you.

I’ve been trying to understand the cause of this low crime, and given human nature there must be some underlying threat/understanding sufficient enough to keep the human dark side (of all of us) at check. To some extent they might have better people, but what’s preventing outsiders like me from spoiling it for all of them?

It seems that their theft laws aren’t that different from what we have here in the USA. It was quite a mystery to me what they ‘must be’ doing so radically differently than we are, that is getting them such great results… I think I found it:

By law all able bodied adults are required to own, and are trained in the proper use of a military issue semi automatic rifle (converted from full automatic- machine gun style), and that’s a pretty scary thought because everyone has assault rifles and bullets, and has to by law; but the reality on the streets is that there is no crime to speak of. I think this is because people are basically good, and we will generally do what is needed to protect our possessions, communities and loved ones; but we need the proper training, equipment and legal authority to do so; under those circumstances the thieves run the risk of sniper attack from all directions 24/7- oh wait, like I said before, there really aren’t any thieves, and no locks at all on unattended bicycles, and they have very low per capita gun violence! Except for the ‘mandatory militia’ it seems like paradise, but if that’s the cause of it, and it leads to less gun violence, I’d somewhat reluctantly accept the deal myself.

The US approach of trying to make everywhere ‘safe for children’ trusts almost no one as if we are all born to sin, and somehow we are the ones with all the problems that we’d expect Switzerland would have from mandatory assault rifles and combat training for all.

I think the scary lesson is; you can’t stop all the violence, but good people always outnumber bad ones, and for the good of society you can do no better than to mandate the power and authority to protect their own to the common people; anything less gives power to the criminal element.

In case you guys didn't know, Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban. It's a pointless, female-inspired law modeled after the expired federal one, where certain "scary-looking" features on guns are illegal.

It does nothing to prevent these types of crimes, obviously, but we'll see a similar law enacted nationwide in response to the massacre.

@map: "the days when mental institutions effectively prevented crazy people from harming themselves and others"

Yes, but those were also the days when many mental institutions routinely abused their patients. I agree that isolating crazy people from society is a Good Thing, but doing it well won't be easy or cheap.

"They could very well unleash a chemical weapon on the entire general population, giving vaccines only to people of their choosing. It would be technically very easy to do something like that and would make revolution pretty much impossible. I'm not saying they are planning to do something like this, only that they could do it and it would be pretty easy. We already know what they think of anyone who doesn't agree with them. "

Then there is no point in the Second Amendment.

I agree that a State will be always more well-equipped than the masses it rules. At the time of the Founding Fathers (more than 3 *centuries* ago, for Christ's sake), the inequality was considered tolerable (1 million people equipped with muskets could easily defeat the government, even with its cannons) but now, because of technological advances, the government will win each time.

Abolish the Second Amendment now. Put an end to guns. They are useless for revolutionary purposes; one federal helicopter or fighter plane can easily defeat an entire army of angry rednecks, on the condition the helicopters and fighters stand ready to destroy civilian buildings and hiding places of the guerilleros, which they will, cf. Syria.

"Third, locking up mental patients is not about giving libs power. It's about harkening to the days when mental institutions effectively prevented crazy people from harming themselves and others. It also attacks the mentals as the sacred cows of liberalism."

The mentals, sacred cow of liberalism? It is Thatcher and Reagan who put an end to institutionalization in the western world, and liberals who have pushed ever since for its return.

"Actually they are already here metaphorically speaking. The entire divorce / family therapy industry is dominated by psychiatrists and psychologists who are totally pro-feminist anti-male. Try being a male in a child custody battle and you will find out how easy it is to end up in losing everything and possibly ending up in prison. These are the same people who will be sitting in judgment when someone, perhaps a soon to be ex-spouse, feels threatened and wants to claim you are a potential risk. No thank you."

It doesn't surprise me at all. I never met a rightist or a virile psychiatrist when I had to deal with them in my line of work. Most would actually view traditionalist and "Roissyst" ideas as signs of delusion. The profession is totally rooted on the Left, and that's why wishing to give it even more power, influence and money, coming from conservatives, is ultra-funny.

""They could very well unleash a chemical weapon on the entire general population, giving vaccines only to people of their choosing. It would be technically very easy to do something like that and would make revolution pretty much impossible. I'm not saying they are planning to do something like this, only that they could do it and it would be pretty easy. We already know what they think of anyone who doesn't agree with them. "

This misses the point. The purpose of ruling is to subjugate and humiliate the ruled. That requires boots-on-the-ground. Mass-killing the population you intend to reduce to slavery has no real purpose.

"There are no magic bullets. Any bullet that can penetrate the body sufficiently to stop a bad guy will also penetrate walls."

It's not a magic bullet. A .223 round is basically a 55 grain .22 slug from a large cartridge. Small size and low mass guarantees that going through, say, a barrier like a door then into a person bleeds off a lot of energy. You also get a tumbling effect where the spin caused by the barrels rifling dissipates and the bullet hits the target sideways instead of on the point. This guarantees a lot of energy dumped into a target.

"The mentals, sacred cow of liberalism? It is Thatcher and Reagan who put an end to institutionalization in the western world, and liberals who have pushed ever since for its return."

Yes. Remember, the liberal is all about elevating the abnormal and the marginal above the normal and the mainstream. Inversion of reality is an essential component of the liberal mindset.

The liberal wants mentally ill people to walk among us under some theory of perfect equality. That is why we have homeless people running around. The Democrats argued that mental institutions are unjust incarcerations so no ordinary people are made to suffer the presence of the mentally ill in all walks of life. That is the intent. It is about humiliation and control. And the crazies unleashed among us are a key component of that.

Look at what is happening now? Instead of a push to take the homeless, the mentally ill and the identifiable crazies away from mainstream society, the push is to disarm ordinary people.

Alex: "Abolish the Second Amendment now. Put an end to guns. They are useless for revolutionary purposes; one federal helicopter or fighter plane can easily defeat an entire army of angry rednecks, on the condition the helicopters and fighters stand ready to destroy civilian buildings and hiding places of the guerilleros, which they will, cf. Syria."

Illiterate goat-herders have killed 3,000 coalition soldiers killed in Afghanistan and show that you don't have to be able to win in battle. You just have to make it costly enough that the other side no longer wishes to fight.

was an engineering student and former Marine who killed 13 people and wounded 32

Whitman Sr. had been raised in an orphanage in Savannah, Georgia

Whitman and two other Marines were involved in an accident in which their Jeep rolled over an embankment. After single-handedly lifting the vehicle to free a fellow Marine,[28] Whitman fell to the ground unconscious from the effort. He was hospitalized for four days.

"Illiterate goat-herders have killed 3,000 coalition soldiers killed in Afghanistan and show that you don't have to be able to win in battle. You just have to make it costly enough that the other side no longer wishes to fight."

Exactly.

Though to be honest, one reason I am pro gun is that I'd much rather have Bible Belters having recreation with guns than being bored and angry.